Principles of Kata

I have been listening to the podcasts on this site and I keep thinking to myself about the combative principles of Kata.

I have watched iain's dvds like mad and I wanted to know what combative principlea actually mean in very very layman terms.!!!

Do you mean that every movement in the Kata should finish off the enemy by either striking, kicking, etc in one go? ie. take the first part of heain shodan - would the principle mean that the gedan bari and then the punch would be the finisher.?

or would it be, that the principle is the movement on the first stance is getting out of the way of one fist of the enemy's and putting on an arm bar with the gedan bari and then the punch to the head.?

I dont know if I have explained myself.!!! i mean i know the technique, i think, but then Iain goes on about principles which i am having a problem with.

for every movement of the kata is there a certain combative principle to know so then i can apply it to other situations like moving to a 45 degree angle, the use of the pulling hand, the use of the hips to throw, the use of pulling with one hand whilst hitting with the other, the use of turning to one side while applying techniques to the enemy?

Any advice would be grateful and I hope you can understand my rabbiting on!!!

The principles of kata are (if I'm getting this right) based on a basic "theme" throughout the kata and not the techniques in particular. For example, in the technique based above if we take the Gedan barai as the arm lock, the priciple of this would be to bend the opponents arm against it's natural range of motion. How you actually do that is irrelevant but you are still expressing that same principle.

In the technique you describe above (i assume) you are pushing down on the opponents elbow whilst pulling up (slightly) on their wrist. Another way of doing the same lock would be to hook your left arm over the opponent right arm clamping their wrist under your armpit and your left forearm under their right elbow (you must make sure that the palm of the opponents hand is up and their elbow is pointing to the ground), from here you seize the opponents right shoulder with your right hand (this helps to control the opponent as you perrform the lock. You grasp your right forearm with your left hand and as you pull up with your left forearm you push down with your left shoulder.

Although this looks completely different to the arm lock you desribe abvove the pircinple remains the same (we are trying to bend the opponents arm against it's natural range of movement) I hope that has made sense.

In my opinion for the bunkai you mention above I think the principle is to control the opponents arm to position their head for the following punch. We see this many times in your kata's and this is why I believe so many techniques are performed at a chudan level, the preceeding movement has dropped your opponents so you can strike.

I have watched Iain’s dvds like mad and I wanted to know what combative principles actually mean in very very layman terms.!!!

This can be one of those “so simple it’s complex things” and I’ll do my best to make it as clear as possible. Although I think Andy & Jock have made a great job doing that already, so I may just be repeating / paraphrasing what they have said.

Jock wrote:

Think of principles is the why to do, as opposed to technique which is the what to do.

I think that’s good definition. When we do a given technique, there are reasons why that technique works. Those “reasons” are the principles behind the techniques.

Andy_R wrote:

For example, in the technique based above if we take the Gedan barai as the arm lock, the principle of this would be to bend the opponent’s arm against it's natural range of motion. How you actually do that is irrelevant but you are still expressing that same principle.

As Andy says, “How you actually do that is irrelevant but you are still expressing that same principle”. So if I change the technique, but the underlying reasons why it works / principles reasons remain then the “new technique” will still work just fine. So if we are to be versatile and adaptable fighters, it is not lots of techniques we need to know, but what we need is an intuitive grasp of the principles. It’s also worth noting that one technique often exhibits many combative principles.

I see kata not as a record of techniques, but as a record of combative principles (which are demonstrated through the bunkai techniques). An example may help. Seeing as Andy has already mentioned it, let’s go with the arm-lock shown in pictures 7, 8 & 9 in this article:

My hands are position such that I gain maximum leverage on the elbow … that leverage is a principle.

The stance assumed allows me to get my bodyweight into the technique … that use of bodyweight is a principle.

Moving to an angle takes me off the enemy’s potential attack line … moving off the attack line is a principle.

Moving to an angle also gives me mechanical advantage as the enemy’s arm is pulled outside their bodyline … gaining mechanical advantage is a principle.

And so on.

Through the practise of that technique I will get better at that specific technique. But what is more important is that I grasp the principles at work because I can apply those to an infinite number of techniques and situations; whereas the “example” the kata gives me to lead me to the principle (i.e. the kata technique) is very specific.

So if I get the principles all my locks will be better because I understand leverage. All my techniques will be more powerful because I understand how to use my bodyweight. I’ll get hit less often because I understand how to keep off the attack line. And I’ll be able to hold my own with people stronger than me because I understand how to gain mechanical advantage.

I will also be able to use techniques, which make use of those principles, which are not in the kata. The principles “give birth” to all techniques and hence that’s why are so important to grasp. It’s also how a kata can record a complete fighting system … not through the recording of every single technique, but through the recording of the principles through “good examples”. As Funakoshi said, “Once you master one technique, you will realise its close relationship to all other techniques.”

some great info coming out on this one, I view principles very simply -

1. move offline
2. go straight down the line
3. drop weight
4. hit with structure
5. pick up with nearest hand
6. lift feet when stepping
7. look, step, action
are all example principles of the Ryu I train, held within the kata which gives a strategy and technical expression of those principles in a format that is transferabile in the traditional manner. (however it isn't that logical IMO).

for me basic strategy and techinoque comes first, then understand the principles - then do what you need to!

Thanks for replying so quick, its been very helpful and I think I can understand some of it now!!!! I must say sorry for not replying myself a bit quicker but I had to go into hospital a few hrs after I wrote the question!!! I am back home now so I can read the above in more detail and I will ask more questions later once the pain killers stop making me drowsy- had to proof read this about 10 times to get it right!!

To my mind Karate can be summed up in 3 words; End it Now. That is, for me, what layman terms means. As Iain stated: I see kata not as a record of techniques, but as a record of combative principles. Potentially all karate movements give me that. The task, as far as I am concerned, is to identify applications and movements that work for me (to end it now). For me identifying kata applications is fun, but it is like friends; some become more than brothers, they are a part of me (very few), the rest are there for fun, interest or making up the numbers.

Really well put, my approach is virtually identical, I have a small number of core applications that we drill from compliant to ''bad guy '' padding up and attempting to punch your lights out. As you say, every application has the potential to end it in quick time so as the good guy has to use restraint in their response, it can never be ''real'', identifying and testing applications is how I get my fun from karate, the clear advantage of understanding principles rather than collecting techniques is as you apply your core techniques if you make a mistake which is very possible against a non-compliant partner you can flow to another technique without hesitation.

As you say, the task is to tailor your study to yourself, so the karate you're practice becomes , essentially your own.

Just read everything and thanks to everyone who has replied. I do have another question then for you.

If I am describing the above movement,for instance, then the above principle whould be the case, but, and my question is this. If I did another application of the movement, then I would take it the principle would be different, to suit my new application? I mean it would not be wrong of me to say that i have say 2 different applications of the same movement and 2 different principles to go with them? hope that makes sense. I am still unwell with these kidney stones!!!

Another point i have then is, how do you teach bunkai then? Do you teach the application first or is it better to teach the principle first and then show the application. Or is it better to do both at the same time?

Just before I go, Can you have say 4 principles and have 2 applications od do the principles go hand in hand with the applications. or is it that the many principles far outweigh the applications in kata.

Do you teach the application first or is it better to teach the principle first and then show the application. Or is it better to do both at the same time?

It is impossible to show a principle on it's own ... all you can show are techniques that make use of that principle. What I mean is that in practise (i.e. application) you can't hit someone with a principle, only techniques making use of that principle.

So, for me, when I teach I show the technique while making referance to the underlying principles. When I show another technique, I'll do that again. Very soon people start to see that, although the techniques were different, the underlying principles are common.

Showing technique without referance to principle could lead to a lack of understanding and the inability to adapt. Showing principle without techniques is impossible and leads to lots of "theoretical discussion" devoid of all comabtive context. So I´d always go with both at the same time.